CLOSE
Opinion

by -
0 243
Baseball game Pixabay photo

By Daniel Dunaief

Daniel Dunaief

I was born in March, so, of course, I wished I were born in the summer.

My brothers were both born in the heat of the summer, which means they could go to a warm beach on their birthdays, sail across some waterway around Long Island, and celebrate the passage of another year without a midterm on their big day or, even worse, the day after their birthday.

But, the real reason I wished my birthday came during the summer was so that I could attend a Yankees game.

When my birthday rolled around, pitchers and catchers were often reporting to spring training, getting ready for the marathon of each baseball season.

When my son was born in July, sandwiched between a host of other family birthdays on both sides of the family, I figured he would have the chance to pursue the kind of unfulfilled baseball fantasy that I could only imagine as I was memorizing facts, figures and formulas for another set of tests before, during and immediately after my annual rite of passage.

Recently, we celebrated his birthday by going to one of the last few Yankees games before the All-Star break. 

We had the privilege of attending a weekend game, when neither of us felt the need to work or meet a deadline.

My son is taking a summer course for which he was supposed to have a virtual test the day before we went to a game. The computer system crashed that day, and the professor suggested everyone take it the next day.

The system, however, continued not to work, perhaps obeying a secret wish my son made over his customized birthday cake, giving him the opportunity to enjoy the entire day with little to no responsibility other than to reply to all the well wishers and to compliment them on their melodic singing.

The game itself became a blowout early, as the Yankees scored run after run, and the Red Sox seemed to retreat to the safety of the dugout soon after coming up to bat.

Both of us ate more than we normally do in a day, celebrating the outing and reveling in the moment, high-fiving each other and the reveling strangers in Yankees jerseys in front of us.

While the packed stadium started to clear out when the game seemed out of reach for the visitors, we remained in our seats until the last pitch, soaking up the sun, predicting the outcomes of each pitcher-hitter match up and observing the small games-within-a-game that comes from watching the defense change its positioning for each hitter.

It still confounds me that a team could leave the third base line completely open, shift all the infielders towards right field, and still, the hitter won’t push the ball in a place where he could get a single or double. After all, if they heeded the advice of Hall of Famer Willie Keeler who suggested they “hit it where they ain’t,” these batters could get a hit, raise their batting average and contribute to a rally just by pushing the ball to a huge expanse of open and unprotected grass in fair territory.

Amid the many relaxing and enjoyable moments of connection with my son, he shared that he kind of wished he had born in the winter. After all, he said, he loves hockey and always imagined going to an NHL game on his birthday.

I suppose the grass is always greener, even on your birthday.

To be fair, though, he did add that wasn’t a genuine wish, as he was thrilled to attend baseball games on his actual birthday, and he was pleased that, in every other year, he didn’t have to worry about exams.

by -
0 328
Russian nesting dolls

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

Incredibly, one man has altered the world. 

On Feb. 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin directed his troops into neighboring Ukraine, and the killing began. Ukrainians, Russian soldiers, mercenaries, sympathetic foreign fighters, civilians — all shot each other. Eastern Ukrainians were deported into Russia by the thousands, cities throughout Ukraine were destroyed, families were ripped apart, millions of Ukrainians fled to other countries, schools stopped, medical services halted, commerce and cultural activities were squelched, random bombings put lives in a lottery. Those are just some of the horrific consequences of Putin’s order against one country.

But the repercussions of that one act are being felt around the globe. Countries that depended on wheat and other agricultural supplies grown and shipped from Ukraine and Russia, are now frantically seeking alternate sources, if they can afford them. Oil and gas, primarily piped from Russia and Ukraine, have been cut off. Exports of hundreds of other products from these two countries have stopped. Oil and gas prices have skyrocketed, leading the way to global inflation. Nations have realigned geopolitically and militarily or strengthened their defense pacts by sending troops and weapons to allies. And other campaigns, to control climate change and suppress the coronavirus, have diminished as national budgets are modified.

What does Putin want?

There has been much speculation about his goals and his fears. They may have crystalized during these ensuing months, or Kremlin watchers may have caught on. One such scholar, who writes about Russia’s politics, foreign policy and, for a score of years, has studied Putin’s behavior, has put forth a cogent scenario in this past Tuesday’s The New York Times. Tatiana Stanovaya believes that Putin has a grand scheme whose goals are threefold.

The first is the most pragmatic: the securing of a land bridge through the Donbas region of the southeast to Crimea. Russian troops seem to have already captured Luhansk, which is part of the Donbas. Apparently, Putin believes the West will accept that Russian troops cannot be dislodged from there and will not cross any red lines to directly engage in such a military effort, eventually abandoning the idea and the territory to Russia.

The second goal is to force Kyiv and the Zelensky government to capitulate from exhaustion and demoralization after one or two years. Russia would then launch a “Russification” of the country, erasing Ukrainian culture and nationhood and imposing Russian language, culture and education. Thus Russia would have expanded its territory and stopped NATO from reaching Russia’s current borders.

The third goal is the most ambitious: Putin wants to build a new world order. “We are used to thinking that Mr. Putin views the West as a hostile force that aims to destroy Russia,” according to writer Stanovaya. “But I believe that for Mr. Putin there are two Wests: a bad one and a good one.”

The “bad” one is the one currently in power and led by elites who are “narrow-minded slaves of their electoral cycles who overlook genuine national interests and are incapable of strategic thinking.” And the “good West”? He believes that “these are ordinary Europeans and Americans who want to have normal relations with Russia and businesses who are eager to profit from close cooperation with their Russian counterparts.”

Today, Putin is convinced, the bad West is declining while the good West is challenging the status quo with nationally oriented leaders like Viktor Orban in Hungary, Marine Le Pen in France, and Donald Trump, “ready to break with the old order and fashion a new one.” 

The war against Ukraine, with its undesirable consequences like high inflation and soaring energy prices, “will encourage the people to rise up and overthrow the traditional political establishment.” This fundamental shift will then bring about a more-friendly West that will meet the security demands of Russia.

If that has a familiar echo, it is not so different from the Communist expectation that the proletariat will rise up and embrace Marx and Lenin. We know how that turned out.

by -
0 1387
Librarian. METRO photo

Most professionals have some formal education, specialized knowledge or years of training in their field. Librarians are no different.

So why are librarians across the nation being challenged on their collection choices in public libraries?

A recent article in The New York Times, “With Rising Book Bans, Librarians Have Come Under Attack,” delved into the issues these public servants have faced as more Americans look to ban books, especially those addressing LGBTQ+ rights and racial inequality.

It’s a librarian’s job to choose books and other items that cover a wide variety of topics so that all community members can find materials they can relate to or help them learn and expand their horizons. Librarians have devoted years of study, usually obtaining a master’s degree in library sciences, to properly choose the books on the shelves.

Libraries have written procedures for librarians to follow when choosing collections. They weigh the opinions of critics and reviewers, evaluate the community’s needs and consider age appropriateness, among other criteria.

The books they choose and place on the shelves are sacred. Not all may be award worthy or to everyone’s liking. Still, the authors have taken their time to share their experiences, knowledge, imagination or all of these to let readers know they are not alone. Books transport us, taking us on an adventure, educating us in the process.

It’s for this reason that books are not to be banned or burned. They are meant to be respected. One doesn’t have to like a topic or how it’s written to accept its right to exist and Americans’ rights to read and write about what they desire.

Recently, The Smithtown Library Board of Trustees instructed all of the library’s branches to take down the Pride Month displays, which included books, in the children’s sections. After criticism from residents, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) and the New York Library Association, the board reversed its decision two days later, and returned the displays to the sections.

After the reversal was voted on, board president Brianna Baker-Stines, who voted against removing the displays, said, “We need to trust the staff we hired.”

Some parents and guardians may be troubled by what they see in the young adult and children’s sections based on what they feel comfortable with, but they must remember that public libraries are not just for them — they are for everyone in their community and everyone has different needs and comfort levels.

Everyone must feel acknowledged.

Ultimately, it’s the job of a parent or guardian to monitor what their child or teenager is reading. When it comes to younger children roaming around the library, it’s up to those same adults to monitor them, and they have every right to steer their children away if they feel they may see or grab a book that the particular child may not be ready for. 

Yes, sometimes an image of seeing someone different from them may prompt a little one to ask questions. When an adult welcomes a child into their world, whether they like it or not, answering questions comes with the territory. It’s their job.

As adults, we have an obligation to assimilate our youth into our increasingly diverse, intricate adult world. We do children no favors by shielding them from the realities of 21st-century life. And our public librarians serve a vital function in bringing attention to those realities.

It’s not up to librarians to choose books for you or your child specifically. That happens when you check out a book. It is their job to provide a variety of material to educate and entertain the community as a whole. Let them do the job that they are trained to do.

by -
0 827
Mice. Pixabay photo

By Daniel Dunaief

Daniel Dunaief

The English language makes no sense. As soon as you create a rule, exceptions crop up like mushrooms colonizing an open field.

Let’s start with the plural form of nouns.

“Add an ‘s’ and be done with it,” you might say. While that’s a simple solution, the language laughs in the face of such elegant simplicity.

Take the words “chief” and “thief.” Chief” becomes “chiefs” easily enough, as Kansas City football fans will readily tell you.

But then thief changes everything. The plural becomes “thieves,” as if someone robbed the word of its “f” and replaced it with something that sounds more vile and villainous.

The plural for hoof, as in the bottom of a horse’s foot, is hooves, but the acceptable plural for roof, which also only has one different letter way at the start of the word, is roofs. Yes, I know people say “rooves,” but that doesn’t make it accurate.

A root at the bottom of the tree that draws nutrients from the ground becomes roots. A single owl calling to another across the treetops utters a hoot. Several owls responding reply in hoots. So far, so good.

But then, what’s wrong with those things that are important for walking and that smell up a room when they sweat too much? How is it that foot, which also only differs in the initial letter, becomes feet?

Then there are the plural forms of animals. A mouse hunting for food with his rodent pals becomes mice, while a moose eating in a field with his family becomes, well, moose.

The moose, however, hasn’t cornered the market on words that describe an individual and a group. Deer, sheep, salmon and trout also don’t budge when switching from one to several. 

And why are the words for a group of animals different? Couldn’t they all be packs, herds, groups or schools?

Wolves banding together to hunt, live and howl form a pack. A family of giraffes is, fittingly, called a tower. That seems appropriate for animals that are born 6 feet tall.

But what about a collection of bears? They’re a sleuth, while a group of bats is a cloud.

One goose pooping on a field is inconvenient and messy, but is still a goose. Two of them are geese. A group of them walking on the ground is a gaggle, while those same birds in flight become a skein.

People often describe the challenge of bringing people together as akin to herding cats. While the verb is accurate, the name for a group of cats is not: they are a clutter, a glaring or a pounce, although numerous other words also describe a cat confab.

Now, more than one dolphin, those adorable marine mammals that make cool clicking sounds and perform at aquariums, becomes a school, which is also true of more than one fish, even though other marine mammals, such as walruses become herds or pods

When several ducks get together, they aren’t a flock, despite the fact that they are birds. They are a raft, perhaps reflecting the fact that they look like independent floats sitting on the water. Sea lions also become rafts when they’re together in the water.

Returning to those hooting owls, they become a parliament. Sure, that makes sense.

A group of hippos is called a bloat. While hippos average 3,310 pounds as an adult, the same word doesn’t apply to the larger elephant, which is part of a herd.

A number of crows is a murder, reflecting, perhaps, their ominous role in literature.

Penguins may take the word group crown, having a wide array of terms for them when they get together. A group is called a colony, rookery or huddles. It doesn’t end there. Swimming penguins, like ducks, are a raft. More likely than not, you might guess the name for walking penguins: they are a waddle.

by -
0 403
Pixabay photo

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

It was an ominous sound. Behind the closed glass doors of our fireplace, there seemed to be a fluttering. It must be an odd gust of wind, I hoped. Deep down, I knew it wasn’t. On closer but timid examination, I could make out the frantic beating of the wings of a bird that had somehow fallen down the chimney and was struggling to escape.

What to do?

If I opened the fireplace doors and the door to the back deck, would the bird immediately fly through the living room and out of the house? I doubted that. It was probably dazed and disoriented and would buzz around the ceiling, wildly flapping its wings. How could I steer it in the right direction? Maybe with a broom? Would it think I was attacking and peck at me?

When in doubt about any of life’s challenges, I often consult the support system of my office staff. I called, explained the situation to our always patient receptionist, and was immediately transferred to the member of the art department who most often deals with suburban wildlife.

“Get a small towel, open the fireplace doors a crack and see if you can catch the bird in the towel as it tries to fly out. You can carry it to the outside door and let it loose,” she suggested. Then, because she is a wonderfully generous human being, she asked if I wanted her husband to stop by.

I declined the offer, thanked her and did as she directed, nervously opening the doors a little and peering inside. At this point, the bird was lying on its side, under a low brick that protruded from the back of the fireplace. I was afraid it was dead. But then, it stood up and again began to flutter its wings. The probability of catching it in the towel seemed remote. 

I closed the doors, went to the phone and called my friendly and helpful exterminator. “We don’t really do that kind of work,” he said with surprise. “But I can recommend a wildlife rescue person.” I’ll text you his phone number as soon as I can find it.” With that, he got off the phone, leaving me alone with a bird in my chimney.

I needed to mobilize. I called my neighbor, even though I knew she was terrified of birds in the house from a nasty experience she had as a child. Good soul that she is, she came right over and viewed the situation. The bird was definitely alive and fluttering. Poor thing. The count was now two nervous women and one nervous bird. Perhaps the most nervous was my friend.

I checked my texts, found the recommendation for the rescuer and immediately called. “I’ll be glad to help you out,” he said. “Where do you live?” When I told him, he assured me that he was nearby and could get there in just a few minutes. “My price is $150 for the visit and $100 to remove the bird,” he informed me. That gave me serious pause. “Um, I’ll call you back,” I said. “OK,” he replied and hung up.

I looked at my friend, who had heard the conversation, and who now looked back at me with a strange light in her eyes. “Are your plastic gloves still in the bottom drawer? she asked. Dashing into the kitchen, she reappeared, pulling on the gloves. To my surprise, she opened the doors, climbed into the fireplace, gently lifted the bird from under brick, ran across the room to the open door and put it down on the outside table. It stood still. We brought water and put the aluminum plate on the far side of the table. It still didn’t move, just watched us as we watched it. Then, as we started to move, it took off and flew away.

We cheered loudly, both for the bird and for my neighbor. She had managed to overcome her intense fear in order to preserve a life and also to save my purse.

by -
0 897

“All politics is local.” This expression rings truer today than ever before. 

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned a system of federalism for the United States — one in which the national government was assigned a select number of well-defined powers, with all other powers not delegated by the Constitution reserved to the states. Over the course of American history, however, more and more powers have been delegated to the federal government.

Right now, we are witnessing a turning point in a century-long power struggle between the federal government and the states. Democratic presidents such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson incrementally augmented the size of the federal government and expanded the scope of its powers. After a century of concentrating power in Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court is now undoing that legacy, returning decision-making authority to lower levels of government. 

Two recent SCOTUS opinions have dramatically altered the balance of power in this country. The court ruled in Dobbs v.  Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the court overruled New York State’s proper-cause licensing requirement for concealed carry of a handgun, making it harder for New York and other states to regulate concealed carry. 

The one interconnecting theme of both of these decisions is that the federal government is yielding much of its power to the states, putting greater pressure on state and local governments to make decisions on behalf of the people. 

No longer are the days of FDR, who saw the federal government as the vehicle to drive the national economy with his New Deal. No longer are the days of LBJ, whose Great Society program sought to eliminate poverty and racial disparities using the federal government as its engine. In this post-Roe America, the power of the federal government is waning, taken out of its hands and placed in the hands of the states.

There are some possible benefits to the decentralization of federal power. For starters, this may reduce voter polarization and division in the United States. With fewer decision-making powers, the stakes will be reduced for congressional and presidential elections. While national security and interstate commerce will always be the domain of the federal government, a host of domestic issues may soon return to the states, meaning state and local elections may soon carry much greater weight.

As power shifts away from the federal government and into our backyards, local residents must maintain an active interest in their state and local legislatures as these bodies will be deciding upon the issues that matter the most. Citizens can — and should — stay informed by reading their local newspapers, where information on these matters is most accessible. And they should remember to write letters to the editor because this remains a tried-and-true method to reach and persuade one’s fellow citizens.

by -
0 273
Pixabay photo

By Daniel Dunaief

Daniel Dunaief

I read bumper stickers, buttons, fortune cookies and messages on T-shirts. They are a form of poetry that captures a moment, an approach, an attitude, and a message in fewer words than some of the soupier birthday cards.

Like birthday cards, sometimes these messages work, are amusing, evoke a reaction, or make me laugh for intentional and unintentional reasons.

In the modern world, in which so many interactions seem less than optimal or contrary to the intentions, I have some suggested messages that reflect the current state of customer service and civility, or lack thereof.

— Please don’t interrupt. I’m in the middle of looking busy. When I started working many years ago, someone told me to balance between looking busy and being under control. She suggested I walk quickly and purposefully, even if just to the bathroom, to suggest that I’m too busy to tackle something new that might involve lots of administrative work.

— Yes, I am talking to you. Those of you old enough to have seen the Robert De Niro film “Raging Bull” will understand this one instantly. This message captures the prevalence of confrontations.

— I have no idea what’s good. I don’t eat here. Diners often ask waiters and waitresses, “what’s good.” More often than not, they tell people what’s popular dishes or their specials. The subtext here is that some of them don’t, can’t or wouldn’t eat where you’re eating, especially after spending considerable time in the kitchen.

— Everything and nothing is special today. Keeping with the dining theme, while blending in some grade inflation, waiters could provide something philosophical for their diners to consume.

— I believe in building suspense. The assignment, the job, or even the entree may be later than someone wanted. This message could suggest the tardiness was deliberate and was designed to enhance appreciation and add drama. So, you’re welcome.

— Sure, you can ask. I like the buttons people wear at Yankees games that encourage fans to ask a question. On a day when these customer service professionals are feeling tired or hung over, they could don messages that encourage people to move along or to figure out how to drive home to Pennsylvania from the Bronx on their own.

— How can I appear to help you? Life is all about optics. Yes, we should be helping and yes, people are paid to help each other, in person, on phone and on the Internet. Sometimes, the person (or artificial intelligence programs) that is offering assistance isn’t delivering much.

— I brought my own questions, thanks. I would love it if a politician wore this button to a debate. On one level, it could suggest the candidate has questions that are hopefully substantive for his or her opponent. On the other, it could be an honest way of acknowledging the disconnect between a question about the environment and an answer about the person’s commitment to family.

— What can you do for me? This is a way of turning the tables, literally, on a hostile or inappropriate customer. It also discourages people from asking too much of someone who is not eager to deliver.

— Is there anything else I can’t do for you? I’ve been on numerous calls with people who haven’t done anything, particularly when dealing with traveling details, who then ask if there’s anything else they can help me with. When they haven’t helped me with the first question, it’s hard to imagine they can help with a second. A more honest message might suggest that they also anticipate not being able to provide any help with a second problem or question.

— What did you get me for my birthday? People often want, or expect, something, even from strangers, on their birthday. They don’t often consider that the person from whom they expect service, help or extra treatment had a birthday they likely missed.

by -
0 299
Stock photo

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

“Are you worried about what’s going to happen to our country?”

This question was posed to me by a younger person I know. He was clearly worried by current events, and with good reason. Our nation is facing a number of serious problems, and, in fact, so is most of the rest of the world.

His question made me think back to some of the chaotic times I remember. Polarization is a painful word being used to describe the United States today, but there were other times in my short lifetime when our country was seriously divided.

I have an early memory of signs hanging in our apartment house elevator. “Impeach Truman,” they urged. I don’t think I knew what they meant, but people on the streets were heatedly saying the same thing. I knew Truman was president, but I certainly did not know anything about impeachment, and I had never before heard of Douglas McArthur, who had been relieved of his command in the Far East for disagreeing with Truman over Korean War tactics. That was a time of polarization, and tensions were high, even in my neighborhood of New York City. The Chicago Tribune editorialized, “The American nation has never been in greater danger.”

Our country moved on.

Everyone who was alive in the 60s well remembers the torments of that decade. Both Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated, civil rights legislation drove friends apart, the Vietnam War caused endless demonstrations and riots, and the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 was a frightful militarized spectacle epitomizing the nation’s divisions and chaos. It seemed our nation was being torn apart. People wondered if the country would survive.

Our country moved on.

There was Watergate in the 70s and a president of the United States was forced to resign. There were long lines at the gas pumps and wild inflation with stagnation and American hostages in Iran.

Our country moved on.

You get the point. Severe problems have always periodically challenged America, our stability and our way of life. There have been those with evil intent and there have been true heroes. We have been challenged regularly, we have come together and we have moved on.

July 4th, we celebrated our independence, and the flag that belongs to all of us. In our small town America, up and down the Island, we paraded together, fire departments and police departments, conservatives and liberals, Blacks and whites and Latinos and Asians, gay and straight, lifers and choicers. We did so as Americans, proud of our nation despite its many faults, recognizing that we can make our country better even as we cheer the exceptionalism that makes immigrants risk and sometimes lose their lives to get here.

If you read through the Declaration of Independence, as I did this past weekend, you will see the values that bind us together. We must not lose, in the struggles to find our way forward today, the respect in the ending sentence:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Let us then start our healing not by putting power over country but by pledging to each other our sacred Honor. That will help unite us, to truly hear each other, and together we can move on. We always have, and together, we always will.

by -
0 454
Photo by Gayatri Malhotra. Unsplash photo

People often wish they could turn back time. The U.S. Supreme Court did just that on Friday, June 24.

America has been cast back to the mid-20th century as states can now make it illegal for women to get abortions. The justices overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that granted a pregnant woman federal license to have an abortion and struck down federal and state laws that forbade the medical procedure. The recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision also overturned Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe’s central holding and cemented abortion access as judicial precedent. 

Around two dozen states are now poised to criminalize abortion, a collective slap in the face to all women from the court’s conservative majority. Women of childbearing age will now have fewer options than their mothers or grandmothers. The reversal can lead to dangerous abortions, especially when one has limited access to health care.

The U.S. already has the highest maternal mortality rates among developed nations, according to the Commonwealth Fund. The actual number is bound to climb as women’s reproductive health is no longer federally protected.

How will these states deal with the repercussions? How will they pay for children whose parents can’t afford to raise them or for the therapy some women will need after delivering a child conceived during rape? Who will adopt or foster the children who are given up, because a mother knows she can’t take care of her child.

Yes, there are more ways to try to prevent unwanted pregnancies. However, birth control is not 100%, and in the case of rape, sometimes by someone who is known, people are not always given a choice regarding having sex.

What’s equally disturbing is that Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that other landmark decisions such as those regarding contraception, sodomy laws and same-sex marriage should be reconsidered.

Are the Supreme Court justices allowing religion to motivate them when making these decisions or suggesting reviews of other laws? There have been debates over when life begins, because we live in a melting pot where people come from various religious backgrounds and some don’t identify with any one religion. In the U.S., we have varying opinions on numerous subjects. There is a need to make a decision considering those varying opinions.

Most of all, women deserve body autonomy. Lawmakers can’t make Americans donate organs after death, so how can they tell women that no matter what their circumstances, one option is not available to them.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade sets a dangerous precedent. Allowing states to set their own laws regarding major issues can lead to chaos.

U.S. citizens don’t have to sit on the sidelines. Every election is a chance to voice our opinions. During the midterm elections, vote for the candidates who will protect and fight for our rights to make our own personal choices.

by -
0 310

By Daniel Dunaief

Daniel Dunaief

We don’t usually go to bed thinking, “what if I’m wrong?” We don’t get up asking ourselves the same question.

We develop our beliefs, stick with them and, as time goes on, we defend them or push for change based on something we think, or are fairly certain, we know.

But it’s worth considering the possibility that we might be wrong, particularly in connection with something as important as the only habitable planet we know.

If you don’t believe climate change is a threat and you think rules restricting environmental pollution are unnecessary and a federal government overreach, have you considered the consequences of being wrong?

I won’t trot out all the climate science experts who have what they consider incontrovertible proof that the climate is warming based on years of data.

You’d probably come back with the argument that the data can be interpreted in other ways or that science itself rarely has complete certainty.

You might even suggest that a warmer climate would mean we wouldn’t need to use as much heat during the winter months and that some crops might grow better during a longer, hotter growing season.

While I don’t ascribe to those thoughts —which a headline grabbing Republican recently espoused — because of the danger to so many staple crops from a warmer season that could include droughts and storms that cripple cities and destroy crops, I want those who don’t believe climate change is real to consider what might happen if they are wrong.

At the time of this writing, the Supreme Court hadn’t ruled on West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency. If the conservative majority, who have been reshaping the political and legal landscape at a rapid pace, rules as expected, the EPA will have less authority to regulate power plant pollution.

That would mean power plants won’t have to comply with federal rules that limit the gases they emit into the environment and the pollutants they send into the air.

These companies may be able to make more money by continuing to operate as they had in the past. Yay for them? Right? Well, not so fast.

What’s the risk if they are wrong? We all make decisions when weighing risks, whether it’s the types of stocks we invest in, the places we go that might be dangerous at night, or the undercooked foods we eat.

So, if they’re wrong, the world continues to heat up, storms such as hurricanes move more slowly, dumping more rain on any one area, crops get destroyed, glaciers continue to melt causing sea levels to rise, and biodiversity declines, wiping out species that might have otherwise led to cures for disease or provide future food sources.

Some areas also become uninhabitable.

Our children, grandchildren and future generations can’t come back to tell us who was right. What we do or don’t do, however, will undoubtedly affect them.

Using the same logic climate change deniers use to suggest that nothing is certain, it seems critical to hedge their bets, protecting us from a future they believe is possible but unlikely.

Even if the Supreme Court acts (or acted, depending on the timing) as expected, we don’t have to be fatalistic or cynical about the next steps in the battle against our own gaseous waste.

Utilities and other companies that produce these gases have to take responsibility for their actions, regardless of what the Supreme Court says or does. Even reluctant legislators have to consider what might happen if they are wrong. Yes, leaders have numerous other problems.

We can’t ignore the Earth. If some people consider the consequences of freeing up companies to send carbon dioxide into the only air we have, they might be making a one-way mistake. They must consider what will happen if they are wrong.

Prev1...575859...169Next Page 58 of 169
TBR News Media is your local news and entertainment website.
We provide you with the latest breaking news and information for your community.
Contact us: [email protected]

Most Viewed

©